Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Big Vitamin D Mistake

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 459 posts

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#171

Post by andai »

manmal wrote: post #168
hellofunk wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vitamin K can be dangerous for a not insignificant part of the population, many of whom don't realize they might be sensitive to it. It is a very strong addition to the body and affects blood clotting and interactions with many medications. If you want to safely increase vitamin K, just eat more dark green vegetables like spinach. There's no need to overdo it with K or it could be a regrettable error.

The best „normal“ dietary source is Gouda cheese, and almost an order of magnitude better, Natto (though that’s hard on the taste buds).

Gouda is important for my health? Thanks, that's the best news I've heard all week !

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#172

Post by LeifCarrotson »

deepGem wrote: post #111
King-Aaron wrote: post #37

Anecdotally, I had this discussion with a cardiovascular interventionist specialist about seven or eight years ago when I was managing a team of cardio theatre orderlies in a private hospital. He made the comment, "mark my words, in about five to ten years time there will be a major scare about needing to absorb more vitamin D". His opinion was that the increase in sunscreen usage and the push to avoid skin cancer by…

The NIH guys also did a study that said that even in tropical countries, Vitamin D absorption has fallen dramatically because of lifestyle changes. One of the probable factors is the lust for fair skin. I routinely see people covered from head to toe to help them stay fair skinned, even kids are sent to play covered in full sleeve clothing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3897581/

Fair skin is a lot better than skin cancer!

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#173

Post by patkai »

jooke wrote: post #160
davidshepherd7 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to back this up: the journal it's published in has a very very low impact factor of 0.235 (i.e. it publishes 4x more papers that it gets citations, probably most of it's papers are never cited by anyone) [1]. If this paper was considered a big a deal by the wider research community you would expect it to be published in a high profile journal. [1]: https://journal.komci.org/ViewJournalInfo.php?JID=109#Impact...

Do you know why this is the case? Is there some flaw in their methodology?

Good question! The scientific method does not include references to "impact factor" :)

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#174

Post by tomhoward »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #172
deepGem wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NIH guys also did a study that said that even in tropical countries, Vitamin D absorption has fallen dramatically because of lifestyle changes. One of the probable factors is the lust for fair skin. I routinely see people covered from head to toe to help them stay fair skinned, even kids are sent to play covered in full sleeve clothing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3897581/

Fair skin is a lot better than skin cancer!

Sure, but higher melanin (ie, darker skin pigmentation) is correlated with lower cancer rates [1][2]. So the point is that cultural changes are causing people who were previously were at lower risk of cancer due to their skin pigmentation/higher melanin, to now have reducing melanin/pigmentation, therefore increasing rates of skin cancer.

[1] https://www.cancer.org/cancer/skin-cancer/prevention-and-ear...

[2] https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin/statistics/race.htm

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#175

Post by pcarolan »

King-Aaron wrote: post #37

Anecdotally, I had this discussion with a cardiovascular interventionist specialist about seven or eight years ago when I was managing a team of cardio theatre orderlies in a private hospital. He made the comment, "mark my words, in about five to ten years time there will be a major scare about needing to absorb more vitamin D". His opinion was that the increase in sunscreen usage and the push to avoid skin cancer by…

What dose is recommended for adults and what is the best way to get it into your system?

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#176

Post by distances »

glibgil wrote: post #21
olympus wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically yes. I didn't read the paper, but the abstract says that our current recommendations were designed to get us past a threshold of 50 (nmol/L, but the units aren't that important). But they claim that we should be aiming to get above 75, and it would be best if we could get above 100. So drink more fortified milk. Edit: oops, looks like I read it wrong. 50 nmol/L isn't the threshold the current RDA gets us to…

Milk costs more than a vitamin

I assume the article is about milk since it's very common to drink milk in Finland. I'd wager most adults drink milk both with lunch and dinner as long as it fits the cuisine.

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#177

Post by twobyfour »

manmal wrote: post #168
hellofunk wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vitamin K can be dangerous for a not insignificant part of the population, many of whom don't realize they might be sensitive to it. It is a very strong addition to the body and affects blood clotting and interactions with many medications. If you want to safely increase vitamin K, just eat more dark green vegetables like spinach. There's no need to overdo it with K or it could be a regrettable error.

The best „normal“ dietary source is Gouda cheese, and almost an order of magnitude better, Natto (though that’s hard on the taste buds).

What is Natto?

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#178

Post by jhwhite »

Could someone help me understand this?

>it was found that 8895 IU/d was needed for 97.5% of individuals to achieve values ≥50 nmol/L. Another study confirmed that 6201 IU/d was needed to achieve 75 nmol/L and 9122 IU/d was needed to reach 100 nmol/L. The largest meta-analysis ever conducted of studies published between 1966 and 2013 showed that 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels What is IU/d? What is nmol/L? Could someone ELI5 the entire abstract for me? Well, maybe a little more than 5, I get that there was an error estimating recommended levels and we're not getting enough.

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#179

Post by arkades »

icelancer wrote: post #136
micro_cam wrote: post #50

This article seems to be a low quality review of other research with a clickbatey title (full text here: https://www.jpmph.org/journal/view.php?doi=10.3961/jpmph.16.... ). Pubmed is sort of like arxiv.org and the fact this has an nih.gov base url should not be taken as an endorsement of it by the NIH. That said I do actually believe that more then the recommended amount of vitamin D can be beneficial and the recommen…

>>Pubmed is sort of like arxiv.org What? It's nothing of the sort. Pubmed is not a preprint server. The paper in question was accepted by a journal. The quality may not have been great - I agree - but it is not like the archive at all.

He means it’s a resource for finding any/all articles, irrespective of source journal or quality - specifically pointing out that people shouldn’t infer anything from the NIH url.

It’s very much like arxiv in that regard.

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#180

Post by baq »

pcarolan wrote: post #175
King-Aaron wrote: post #37

Anecdotally, I had this discussion with a cardiovascular interventionist specialist about seven or eight years ago when I was managing a team of cardio theatre orderlies in a private hospital. He made the comment, "mark my words, in about five to ten years time there will be a major scare about needing to absorb more vitamin D". His opinion was that the increase in sunscreen usage and the push to avoid skin cancer by…

What dose is recommended for adults and what is the best way to get it into your system?

an hour of sunshine a day?
Post reply on HN